I've concluded that there will be no revolution, but that's okay! Who said we needed to remove the current society before building our own? Don't just start a commune in the middle of nowhere, but give the world some cancers and let them grow! Organize with other communists! Settle on a location! Study the necessary skills, such as horticulture for example! If you can, post updates on how it goes and let us know about what you do!
I know I don't have all too much for resources, but this manic flurry and desire to post will be very fleeting. I've concluded that just as I should be reading the fascinating swaths of theory out there, I should also be reading up on things that are integral to building a society. We could prepare ourselves for revolution or prepare ourselves a communist movement! Don't agonise! Communize!
Pic unrelated B) Also, if my thread is complete shit and I end up regretting the dumbfuck decision I made at 3AM, do future me a favour and turn this into a praxis thread
is this the same faggot who started the Banalites de Base thread? gtfo fascist
Love you user! Your OP reads as if we would be deep comrades if we ever met in the flesh. I've also gotten into horticulture hard as of late. Squattheplanet really is weird that it isn't talked about more in these circles (thinking of 0ch of before too). It seems as if it could help a lot of people out in our general demography (which I suppose is mainly between 18-30+ years old). I for example learned that you can practically walk from the US into Canada in a variety of mountainous areas.
While I too doubt that there won't be a revolution, don't let these fucks get to you ^ we need more DIY content like what you provided here on this board, in fact I'd say it's crucial if we're ever going to arrive at that revolutionary moment where the workers are actually empowered, and not merely more social revolutions consisting of oligarchical elements re-compositing into new structural arrangements. Our revolution takes time. Economically we're presently in a far better moment than the desperate revolutionary socialist elements were in the early 20th century, as capitalism today is first of all global and far more mature on average, which implies a higher organic composition of capital and thus we can observe the tendency for the rate of profit to fall with far more liberatory potential. Don't forget that every previous revolution had taken a long time. It's a process, not an immediate event. We need to build the communes, network, connect cooperative and syndicalist elements as well as municipal assemblies, trans-nationally. It's all important and crucial for the final expropriation / conclusive moment of conflict. I have a hunch that ecological catastrophe will be very intertwined with that event.
Local production for use/need of foodstuff in technologically modern and sustainable communes is a definite step in the right direction.
If we are talking about 99% of the first world he is darm right son.
Castroism third worldism? It's a rhetorical question, I really don't care.
I should add that if you can get things going with your communist scene, work with areas that have food banks and fertile land!!!
I thought of the idea of class consciousness subjects as something of a statistic or number that either grows or falls, and likewise for lumpens. This idea sounds really stupid given seldom is class consciousness ever something that reverses (and only ever seems to do so under the very most spooky of conditions), but when considering the idea of Capitalist Realism, I'm convinced that likewise can happen regarding lumpens w/r/t difficulty of being convinced of something else. I'm starting to think that there's a certain point to which ideology is hard-wired into someone, and that such a thing, when approached as though some variable which goes up, down, and all around, hits a point where radicalization becomes impossible! Paired with the transition from an industrial economy to an informational economy, with most labor being transferred to the third world, there are less people to radicalize as easily than ever before!
Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic, but I think that there's a threshold wherein capitalist ideology is reified to irreversible levels and encompasses enough that it exceeds the ability to radicalize subjects. If we don't do anything, our supply line will have been cut off before things got violent. also inb4 but I don't think revolution is necessary to start building our society!
Who said we needed to follow Marx absolutely!?
Golly gee, hot dog! This is the kinda discussion I come here for :^)
Nope! Also jazz rules, Adorno drools!
I really appreciate the support user! I'm extremely insecure w/r/t to sounding like a pseud so I'm glad that I communicated my idea clearly!>>77036
Marxists. And they basically make up 90% of the real far left.
all i know is that i am no marxist
What are you exactly? Some type of Bakunin or Proudhon boi?
Because he's right, if you don't overthrow capitalism, capitalism will overthrow your little hippie commune or it will have to stay completely marginalized, here's a little example : youtube.com/watch?v=duRTfLG6qHc
I was a "Resistance is fertile" guy before until I heard about 1870 Paris Commune and then Marx.
The video pertains to an ecologic protest commune, and by no means do I advocate hippie communes! I find escaping to some commune out in the middle of nowhere to be cowardice from problems which capitalism creates, and I think such problems (ecologic collapse, war, et cetera) are going to cause great damage that no isolated commune can avoid. Communization is a far different practice from starting up any old commune out in the woods. When people put into practice the social relations that comprise the society, on no grounds can one try and impede on that.
I guess anyone who isn't an orthodox Marxist isn't part of the real far left :^)
How is that different exactly?
Except the bourgeois state.
People sometimes do it for example with solar power, where they buy solar panels communally and also share the electricity communally. Same with local vegetable gardens, where neighbours might work together on communally owned plots.
Starting a new commune where no society exists, attracts the kind of people who would leave everything they have behind: AKA hippies and weird people. Communally sharing and building stuff in your own neighbourhood doesn't do this, normal people can and tend to participate, instead of just weirdos.
Take off that pirate flag, you hippie newfag.
At the end it's the same thing because if your "communization" grow enough it will be repressed by the bourgeois state when they will stop tolerating you. If you don't upset the bourgeois state it means you don't upset the bourgeoisie and so it means your "communization" is marginal or useless.
OP is somewhat right, there will be no revolution as some sort of rapture that will just happen. You're going to have to be involved in it, and to that end you should have structures that allow you to support revolutionaires. Too much of the left ignores this, which is why we're more likely to get killed by reactionaries than pull off a successful revolution.
I agree, I was merely giving explanation what the difference is. Setting up a new commune would of course have the same problem: bourgeois states allows them as long as they don't cause a ruckus.
This is anarchist communization.
That's not a 'little example' it is THE example of our decade. And they are not a 'hippie commune', you simply are ignorant. Nor is it "in the middle of nowhere". [Some] people involved with ZAD are EXPLICITLY 'communisateurs'. And as someone posted, yes, the bourgeois state WILL mess with your experiments in 'social relations'. This simply means that all your experimentation must be conscious of itself as antagonistic to the state or 'as a party in the world civil war'. Agonise AND communize. Build the Deleuzian war machine. You have an impulse in the right direction, that is, towards the means of subsistence just as much as the means of production. That also ties in with your [I think] correct perception that people are 'in' capitalist ideology too deeply and that we basically need to do 'utopian fringe stuff' to secure at least our subsistence while the world tears itself apart.
I know, I was being sarcastic. But that's exactly prove my point, THE example of our decade has been crushed without major problem by the bourgeois state. So you can "communize" whatever you want, it will end the same way if you don't capture or destroy the bourgeois state.
If you agree to what he said, why do you still think communization is a relevant strategy or worth discussing at all?
OG leftcom communization > utopian anarchist communization
only somebody who has never read a whole book by Bakunin or any "leftcom" writer could believe this (or an ML) Or, Vaneigem as interpreted by crimethinc kids
I'm in the middle of Reemergence right now, so far it reads to be virtually indistinguishable from Bakunin's recommendations if you cut out the flowery language. That'd be relevant and digestible to most of the modern working class tbh.
google what i said genius
That's all you said there user. Am I supposed to google those phrases? I doubt that would deliver answers to my question. And just "Not-Marxist" means you could by anything from anarcho syndicalist to neonazi. Do you even remember what you wrote genius? And yeah since you keep refusing answering such a simple question about your fucking self I guess you have no real fixed ideology in the first place. Lmao.
Bakunin believed in maintaining the market you total jackass. It is completely different to any conclusion reached by tendencies of left-communism.
Anarchists were the initiators of scientific socialism deal with it.
No he didn't, you're confusing him with Proudhon. The "communal market" attributed to Bakunin is nothing like the market as the current social relation of capitalism and is interchangeable with Marx's idea of labor vouchers in early-stage communism.
Wew. Jesus didn't call himself a Jesuite either and Hitler also didn't call himself a Hitlerite. What a mind blowing phrase. Thanks showing it to me for the xth time already. It still doesn't answer my question of what ideology you are in the least whatsoever. Oof. But I guess since you are quoting Marx you at least must be *something* on the left.
tbh Mutualists basically are the third positionists of Anarchism.
Mutualists were the orginal original centrists, the guys shirt in the memes isn't a coincidence.
Would you have a reference on Bakunin's "communal markets"?
Yeah, see the section on "building a new social order" in pdf related. Essentially he describes the lower phase of communism with former storefronts being converted into communal markets to distribute food and goods for labor vouchers while working towards universally providing food to people on the basis of need without requiring labor vouchers. This is a divergence from the market as an organ of exchange and accumulation to the point it isn't the market and is closer to a storage center for food and goods.
People like you who think that a class society is overturned in a single swoop of "the revolution" are fucking retarded idealists who of course inevitably get disappointed when it doesn't fucking happen, and find comfort in lifestylist bullshit like this. Kill yourselves.
Oh come on. Are you seriously telling me I betrayed the author's thought here? He's literally saying "exchange in the traditional sense" won't give way to distribution before upper-stage communism.
See there's a difference between being stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, and being the old society.
Let me spell it out for you: No, and the easiest way to ration products in short supply is not to sell these scarce products. That's the capitalist way.
>No, and the easiest way… ''No, the easiest way…
Yes, because you chopped off to take place when work is rationally organized, produces an oversupply of this or that product, it will not be necessary to ration consumption. The practice of selling, which was adopted as a sort of deterrent to immoderate consumption, will be abolished; the communal banks will no longer sell commodities, they will distribute them in accordance with the needs of the consumers. In context Bakunin is saying that exchange in the traditional sense will only exist temporarily until scarcity has been addressed. This is roughly the same argument that Marx made when he advocated for labor vouchers as a method to handle shortages and scarcity in the early socialist society. Bakunin is not stating that the communal market and exchange should exist for their own sake, as Proudhon did, but that it is going to exist temporarily before dissolving into distribution. They don't circulate or transfer and can't be used to purchase capital. So both Bakunin and Marx are capitalists? Because that's exactly what they both advocated for in the form of labor vouchers.
Question for the read fella regarding Bakunin ITT: If Bakunin held these very libertarian communist-like positions then why did the Jura federation (Kropotkin, Malatesta, Reclus, etc.) feel the need to depart theoretically from Bakunin's anarcho-collectivism into explicitly anarcho-communism?
The short of it is that the ancoms believed vouchers to be unnecessary. Essentially Bakunin was speaking of a revolution establishing a society where from each according to his ability to each according to his work, while the ananrcho-communists were speaking of a revolution that established a society where from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. There's more to it but I don't have the ability or time to describe from my phone.
Ah, thank you for freshening up my memory. Are we of a similar opinion that Bakunin perhaps was more realistic? I mean the anarcho-communists took over as a dominant strategic influence over anarchism and have continued to elaborate onward since then in various currents but I think they miss out on how much process pays a role in our task. Bakunin's position seemed more sensible in this respect (just remembered that he was also very adamant on insurrection and destruction being the 'first step' which I perhaps disagree with as I think positive propaganda of showing your theory's alternative serves as a very effective recruitment method and is partly the reason why I'm so attracted to communization). Why did anarcho-collectivism seem to die out so completely? It's very strange, not many other tendencies just completely died like anarcho-collectivism did, I mean fucking mutualism has made a semi-comeback with Kevin Carson and some "neo-Proudhonian" bloggers - what the fuck. I think an anarcho-collectivism resurrection would fill a definite slot of needed theoretical diversity in our contemporary struggle, as it seems mainly split between hyper-centralized, -revisionist and -mixed economy social democrats and Marxist-Leninist on the one side and informal insurrecto-graffiti gang shoplifters with a phobia for societal change on the other. It seems so blatantly obvious what's lacking. The middle. More syntheses and tendencies that emphasize organized gradual struggles that aren't mediated by forms stemming from capital (the state, unions). Anarcho-collectivism x leftcom? Upon reflection they're actually strikingly similar now that I think about it. Materialist, transition-oriented, not spooked by a cascade of self-defeating pitfalls like most other tendencies. Am I wrong? As you may notice I'm not of a very sectarian mindset when it comes to libertarian communism, I find the anarcho-communist / libertarian Marxist squabbling extremely petty. Reply when when you're by a proper computer lol
Dude, come on.
Which is wrong.
That is not at all the same argument. Marx explicitly stated that shortages and scarcity will be handled without exchanges.
But when is this "dissolution" supposed to occur?
Oh shit this debate's intense! I don't have the theory to participate but what I do have is a bowl of popcorn.
Well good for you.
Bakunin did not advocate for one economic solution over the other. Anarcho-collectivism was invented by Wikipedia and their only citation to Bakunin is a text written by someone else.
Kropotkin did not "believe" labour vouchers to be unnecessary, but correctly pointed out them to be Capital with a worker's face.
Communization 1. rejects Marx's mistake about labour vouchers and calls for the immediate socialization of all fruits of labour, 2. admits Bakunin's views on the negative and the praxis of "informal insurrecto-graffiti gang shoplifters".
it's not particularly cool or whatever but i really can't see anything other than market socialism with a small regulatory government serving as a viable replacement for capitalism, maybe it's because it's what i'm used to but replacing money with labour vouchers just seems impractical, like who do i trade my vouchers with if they just immediately disappear, presumably some kind of state entity that decides how much stuff is worth
>On Building the New Social Order, by James Guillaume Anything by Bakunin?
There's no "Marx's mistake about labour vouchers". Marx called for the immediate socialization of all fruits of labour.
(Of course "immediate" here stands for: "in the course of the revolution". It won't happen overnight.)
Yes and the Soviet Union was a 70 year long revolution, right? Go and spread your PR bullshit somewhere else.
No one. You produce your labour certificate like one produces one's ID card.
No, it obviously failed long before that.
Anarchist communization, I take it? So how are the informal insurrecto-graffiti gang shoplifters supposed to amass a powerful enough counter-power to be able to transcend capitalism with all it's high-tech machinations of today? By the looks of how surveillance and face recognition, paired with datamining of people's pockets/hands shoplifting may become practically impossible in just a decade or two.
Or like five years. British CCTV is fucking crazy already.
doesn't this just replace the capitalist middleman with the state, wouldn't it make more sense for producers and consumers to engage directly with each other to decide what things are worth
You come on, Bakunin is describing the transition from lower stage to higher stage communism to the point of describing the withering away of a specific structure when rationing becomes unnecessary. I don't particularly agree with his ideas of labor vouchers but what he's talking about is clearly different from Proudhon. notanargument.jpg It is, the mechanics of the vouchers described by both Marx and Bakunin operate in the same fashion and for the same purpose. That Bakunin uses the word exchange no more means that he wanted top retain capitalist exchange as understood by Marxists than if post-revolution a couple were to engage in fluid exchange or friends were to exchange contact information. When the prodigious growth of production, which will not fail to take place when work is rationally organized, produces an oversupply of this or that product is when it is no longer necessary. There isn't trade in the capitalist sense as there is no profit, there is a rationing of scarce resources using labor vouchers. Because they are designed in such a way and infrastructure does not support it. We could immediately put this into practice with the technology we have now similar to a crypto wallet or debit card. My "misrepresentation" is a brief summation of Marx's point Other than semantics this is indistinguishable from what Bakunin described in the pdf I provided you. In both producers are compensated with a voucher for their labor which they use to draw from the social stock of consumption, which frankly is a pretentious or non-native English speaker way of saying exchange vouchers for shit. English is a stupid language where words have too many double meanings, if you look past that and read both in context it's clear that the vouchers they advocate for is virtually identical in this respect. The "worker's councils" of the USSR weren't run by workers and the opposite of what Bakunin intended while Stalin's promise is universal among the left, including Marx, that believes in an early stage or similar socialism assuming we're conflating labor vouchers with money.
It is stated in the book that the section was written by James Guillaume, not Bakunin, and that they were very close to each other, so probably Bakunin would have agreed with it. I agree that the proposal looks basically identical to labor vouchers, and the critique of it ITT seems to amount to nothing more than throwing a fit over unfortunate choices in how the author named concepts.
IIRC diverging from 1:1 correspondence between voucher and product in case of planning fuckups was also approved of by Engels.
How about you answer the question?
Shock status: imagined
Yeah, Bakunin and Guillaume were close enough to call his writing part of Bakunin's ideology. Regardless, what is being described is interchangeable with Marx's proposed labor vouchers and it's mindboggling that some are unable to read the text in context instead of ctrl+f for their trigger words.
I answered it.
I'm not here to answer cuntish questions.
I take that as an admittance of the assumption that informal networks would pose a threat to global capital is ludicrous, because it is. You need organizations for that. Informality is a dead end that results in petty personal hedonism and a complete capitulation to challenging the dominant system that's fucking everything over but a small elite of nepotistic sociopaths.
Communalism is a better strategy from the sounds of how you're portraying "leftcom communization".
That's rich. You're the one who quoted Marx (and even though you cherry picked your trigger word, you still felt the need to accuse Marx of being "pretentious" and not know English (!!)).
Now you want some context? Here's some context for you:
It doesn't follow that from something becoming the norm in capitalism that it won't be the norm after it. Socialism is not, "let's always do the opposite of what we used to do". You get hung up on a few words like "trade" or "bank" without trying to understand (perhaps without even reading?) the context they appear in. >They're a unique certificate attesting one worker's concrete labour in order to compare him with other workers; not representations of abstract labour destined to be individually exchanged for "material depositories" of an equivalent quantity of abstract labour. Labour vouchers (as Marx talked about them both in Capital and CotGP) and the labor scores attached to products to ration them are both one-dimensional measures.
Sorry to bother you, but that's how Marx described labour vouchers. (I'm a native German speaker btw.) Products for individual consumption will be rationed, so that people get an amount of products corresponding to their contribution (minus deductions for kids etc.). Marx made no qualitative distinctions in that, so it's just a homogenized 1D quantity of labour represented in LVs and products.
Yes to show that mechanically he described the same situation as Bakunin using different words, that you are unable to acknowledge that someone who fought with Marx over terminology used different terminology than Marx is baffling. Exchange value does not equal exchange, otherwise it would predate capitalism by centuries and as such not be specific to capitalism. Nothing by Bakunin indicates this to be his thought, in the very text we're arguing over Bakunin's comrade states that "trade" is a temporary holdover from capitalism as society adjusts to shed such birthmarks, with "trade" withering away as production changes. The situation described a description of what would have happened if a revolution was successful in Bakunin's time and went about transforming society, ie the repurposing of existing structures until new structures to fit the be society are built. This is quite literally the concept of birthmarks of the old society. In both cases labor vouchers are awarded based upon labor performed and used to receive products for consumption from the social stock according to said labor, this is "exchange" in the English definition that predates capitalism but not "exchange-value" as described by Marx in Capital. Your entire argument of a differentiation between Marx-Vouchers and Bakuninbux hinges upon semantics that ignore the context of Bakunin's (and Guillaume's) statements only to restate their actual position in different terminology and claim it to be radically different. The only misinterpretation has come from you, and it amounts to being booty-blasted Bakunin called the social stock of means of consumption a "communal market", which itself is understandable given that one definition for market refers to a physical location where people go to pick up products for consumption aka a stock of means of consumption, instead of something kosher.
Indeed. But Marx didn't say anything about "labor scores attached to products"; you invented that. Instead, he specified the exact opposite.
Good for you.
Don't you realize how contradictory your claims are? "The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another." – Marx. There is a purely quantitative correspondence between work done and products you can get for individual consumption via the vouchers. An amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form, meaning the products are scored by the one-dimensional labor measure, and the sum of the scores of the products you take for your individual consumption basket equals the reduction in your consumption budget.
If you think it is still possible to organize and the very technological attacks that you recruit against informal organizations wouldn't make formal organizations even more of a stillbirth idea, you need to start using your head instead of parroting bourgeois propaganda.
You're right my friend, from the same text, the paragraph right after the statement we've been arguing about Marx states essentially the same thing Bakunin did to trigger our friend, even calling it exchange! I name dropped Bakunin because I thought more anons would do well to read him, but it seems that we need to read more of Marx as well if the understanding of his labor vouchers is like this.